Current Developer Attitudes - Developers vs Gamers?

[Epona]

Basically the gamer side has become quite the whiny

Are you serious? Look at all the shit gamers put devs through, you can't for a second make them out to be victims here. Developers create and try to protect content and gamers pirate it, zero-bomb it, threaten to boycott the developer for whatever reason, send hate mail, etc.

If they're getting defensive, they have every right to.

Funny how you don't mention that gamers BUY it. If gamers weren't buying the games and were instead pirating them, it wouldn't long take before that developer couldn't afford to make more games for people to ***** about. Honestly, do you really believe that most of the people bitching about ME3 or the PS3 version of Skyrim, pirated those games?

Moral is: If people are bitching about your game, the earned that right when they bought it.

"The customer is always right" is a lie. Sometimes the customer is a fucking idiot and should be told off since they deserve it.

And the gamers (customers) are not a very rational crowd to please. Piracy is one of the many factors put into it. The ME3 overreaction is one of the latest worst culprits. Bioware makes an objectively very good game, technically sound, years in the making, 10 minutes make it the worst thing off all time.

Death threats, hate mail, forum raging, metabombing away.

It's still a minority (although I'm not inclined to believe that the retake movement was just a minority of those types) that acts that way but it's still a large enough portion to have enough voice to be heard and forced to be acknowledged.

I never said the customer is always right, just the buying the game opens up the right to complain.

 

[Vegosiux]

I am saying that I still get paid if the game sells poorly. Thats the thing about working on a product that takes sometimes years to make and you are paid on a monthly basis. No matter how the game sell. I already got my money. So no you dont pay my salary.

Well, two things.

First, dude, we get it. You work hard on your projects and you don't like criticism, because you take pride in your work. That's all good and fair, a perfectly human attitude. But you don't get to tell your customer to piss off, because chances are, that's exactly what they will do. And when they do, that means less money for future projects. Sure you may have gotten paid for the game you developed already (duh), but if less money flows in, you might not get paid (as much) when the next one comes around.

And you have to accept that it doesn't matter how hard you worked on something if the customer is not satisfied, you have to suck it up. You don't get to stomp your feet and tell them they're being an ungrateful fuck, you don't get to do that even if that's precisely what they are. Because it's not your work that sells the games, it's not your work that brings the money in, it's the PR. It's the advertisements, and it's the company reputation, and you do not want to jeopardize that because your pride is hurt. It's all good and well that you take pride in your work, but what you do is not what brings in sales.

Second, no, customers don't "play your salary", just like "we" don't pay cops and teachers. But the difference between the two is, as was told, that we have to pay taxes, but we don't have to buy games. And as I said above, if enough people decide not to buy, you have less available funds for future projects. Which can mean anything from lack of cutting edge equipment to lower pay, but usually a mix of the possibilites.

Oh and guess what? I think it's an absolute disgrace that it's PR and all that nonsense that makes sales happen. I'd rather see good stuff speak for itself. But, to my dismay, the world just doesn't work that way.

 

[luckshot]

others have already stated as much but i figure ill add my $.02 and say that from this and the average AAA game style it seems the industry doesnt realize that a lot of gamers are full grown adults and not 15 year old kids mowing lawns.

so they try to make and sell the same type of games that would be popular when we (gamers over 25) were buying 10 yrs ago...gamers grew and their attitudes changed, developers seem to be having a hard time with that


i think the ME3 ending debacle is more a combination of a company falling back on standard PR when they needed to be upfront and honest and a developer being more than a little rushed to meet deadlines...the gaming press however was either a disconnect with readers or a play for hits on their sites

 

[Kahunaburger]

whether or not games are "art" or a "service"

Underlined: the problem with this statement.

Regardless of whether we consider games to conform to a nebulous "art" definition, they are generally sold as products.

You. Do. Not. Get. To. Argue. With. Your. Customers.

So you argue that if enough people complained about it, Bioware should remove the homosexual relationship options from Dragon Age 2?
I think what you fail to see is that if "the customer is king" mentality was really adopted by the games industry, the majority of games we (or at least I) love today would not even exist, because, let's face it, the biggest and most profitable gaming series of all time is Call of Duty.

You appear to be confusing "not getting into unprofessional arguments with customers" with "trying to do everything every customer tells you to do."

 

[Chemical Alia]

within the last few months in the gaming world Ive noticed a current trend among some developers that have reacted to criticism by (as I see it) attacking the general market, usually with insults, belittlement and just telling them that really their opinion doesn't matter (we make it and if you don't like it, your the one with the problem).
I first noticed it with developer Vector Cell responding to criticism about their game AMY, then with EA/Biowere/ME3 debacle and finally with Phil Fish, maker of FEZ (although that was more of a tantrum I think but I think it relates)

what I'm wondering is where did this whole attitude of what I see as Developers vs Gamers stem from? did it happen just suddenly and if so where? or was it gradual with changing upper management culture or whatever

also those are some examples that Ive noticed, if there are more examples that prove or disprove my statements let me know

Mostly the backlash stems from the fact that technically the person you are reaching isn't the person who was calling the shots on the deadline. Most games don't get finished or polished to anything approaching a finished product because of accountants. If you draw a line all the way back to the primary cause of nearly all the problems in the industry. The accountants hold the most blame. They have been given WAY too much power over the creative process.

They destroy a game by forcing it to be released too soon, with too many money grabs. The consumers backlash, usually at the programmers. And the programmers freak because they didn't have much of any control over things in that department. It was just an accountant. Saying, "We need our money by this day. To hell if the game is finished or not."

Yeah, this here is why no developer or studio ever actually WANTS to be acquired by a large publisher like EA or Activision. Nobody wants to be in the position of facing major layoffs if their game doesn't sell to the publisher's expectations, or having money from the publisher being held out as they attempt to bleed the studio dry until they can force a buyout. But most studios don't have an infinite supply of money like Epic or Valve, and they are given specific deadlines to meet if they want to get paid by the publisher and continue making games/having a job. Unless you're one of those handful of studios at the top of the industry, you're bound to your milestones and polish is something you [i[might[/i] have time for if you're lucky enough to hit all of your deadlines on time. Making games is hard, lol.

 

[xDarc]

I think what it once more boils down to is the question of whether or not games are "art" or a "service".
Case in point:

Developers have no obligation to consumers? Developers do not like being told their efforts are shit? Developers have a right to defend themselves?

Well la dee fucking da- what makes developers so god damn special?

In the real world, I work for a bank- I won't say which bank- but suffice to say that people do NOTHING but ***** and moan about the service all day long, the product, threaten to boycott, write complaints in which they completely make things up on the spot, etc.

Could you IMAGINE if Bank of America told all those people they foreclosed on to go fuck themselves? They'd say, we didn't force you to buy a home.

Rivers of blood would flow through the streets.

The attitude that developers owe consumers nothing is juvenile and bad for business. Developers need to get over themselves and understand that their job does not put them above the bullshit that rest of the working world has to deal with.

You just compared a bank to videogame development, the process of managing money to creating an entertaining and ideally artistic form of expression, loans in the worth of thousands of dollars to a sixty dollar at max purchase.

And this is how much you don't get it. They are providing goods and services, same as anyone else. They have an obligation to their customers, same as anyone else. Or they can go out of business, same as anyone else.

Games are art? Games are a business.

 

[Epona]

I think what it once more boils down to is the question of whether or not games are "art" or a "service".
Case in point:

Developers have no obligation to consumers? Developers do not like being told their efforts are shit? Developers have a right to defend themselves?

Well la dee fucking da- what makes developers so god damn special?

In the real world, I work for a bank- I won't say which bank- but suffice to say that people do NOTHING but ***** and moan about the service all day long, the product, threaten to boycott, write complaints in which they completely make things up on the spot, etc.

Could you IMAGINE if Bank of America told all those people they foreclosed on to go fuck themselves? They'd say, we didn't force you to buy a home.

Rivers of blood would flow through the streets.

The attitude that developers owe consumers nothing is juvenile and bad for business. Developers need to get over themselves and understand that their job does not put them above the bullshit that rest of the working world has to deal with.

You just compared a bank to videogame development, the process of managing money to creating an entertaining and ideally artistic form of expression, loans in the worth of thousands of dollars to a sixty dollar at max purchase.

And this is how much you don't get it. They are providing goods and services, same as anyone else. They have an obligation to their customers, same as anyone else. Or they can go out of business, same as anyone else.

Games are art? Games are a business.

They may not be a big business much longer if developers keep acting like spoiled kids in art class.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I don't see why we have to be so extreme in our thinking. It seems as if people think they need to choose a side (developer vs gamer), but that's not really the case. I can understand why the developer may become defensive when the quality of their work comes into question, but I also understand the dissatisfaction of gamers who feel that their being lied to or taken advantage of.

The problem I think we're having isn't one of interest, as I am pretty sure both the developer and the gamer want the best game possible. No, it's simply a communication problem that derives from each group resorting to name calling and juvenile whining instead of open-mindedness and maturity as far as discussion is concerned.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Because the gamers started it?

It wasn't just criticism, it was way way past that. The internet gives people free reign to be complete asshats with very little fear of reprisal, and the evidence is overwhelmingly that people become absolute tools when they are protected by even the slightest feeling of anonymity.

I wish there was more anti-gamer sentiment among gamers. I want stuff like the ending to MGS2, which was one of the greatest attacks on gamers I've ever seen, made all the better because the reaction to it was exactly what MGS2 predicted it would be in the game itself, and gamers weren't (and still aren't) able to see the irony in that.

Kind of like how Cracked or Yahtzee will occasionally say that something they have said will provoke a lot of unnecessary and misguided rage in the forums, and then half of the forum comments are exactly that.

 

[Vegosiux]

Because the gamers started it?

Well, my mother taught me not to use "But he started it!" as an excuse when I was about, oh, 4, I think.

Tho I agree sometimes gamers take things too far. Doesn't invalidate legitimate complaints, though.

 

[Vegosiux]

Our customer is the publisher. He is the one we need to keep happy. Not the player. TO say "player happy = publisher happy" is a vast oversimplification of things.

Of course, the two are not equal, but if it's a halfway decent publisher, you're not going to make him too happy by lashing out at the players. If people stop buying, publishers tend to become less happy.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Because the gamers started it?

Well, my mother taught me not to use "But he started it!" as an excuse when I was about, oh, 4, I think.

Tho I agree sometimes gamers take things too far. Doesn't invalidate legitimate complaints, though.

Does not mean those others do not exist in great numbers either. Does anyone remember the L4D2 controversy? The Portal 2 DLC controversy? The Mass Effect 3 multiplayer controversy? The Fallout 3 controversy? The Wind Waker controversy? The Silent Hill 4 controversy? Stupid complaints can, and often times do, far outnumber legitimate ones. And if the stupids ones are the majority of the ones devs see, well... :/

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Thought you meant that and I doubted myself thinking no one could actually have issue with it. We buy their games. That money finances them through either success resulting in funding from a publisher or if they are independent (valve included) it goes straight to them. We pay their salaries. This is not limited to those kickstarted things and I cant understand how you dont see that. I was not saying the customer is always right because that is and isnt true in certain ways but thats a seperate discussion, as the two statements are wholly unrelated. We are their customers and we decide if they make money or not, they do not laugh it up when a game bombs because they know they will not be successful in future (or at least as much). I was saying that, as their paying customers, they owe us repsect and should understand that we are not a given. Your argument is above all, pointless and nitpicky.

I have been helping making games for Danish sites for about a year now Most of the work I have done is been holiday related games for TV stations kids section. I dont get paid per use/sale.

The developers dont get paid per sale (well technically there are instances where they do, but like me the norm is a monthly paycheck). They get new contracts if their games do well, sometimes. Other times they dont. Wether or not you get a contract again has more to do with your relationship with your publisher than it has to do with sale. Publisher know that there are more factors in sales than quality, and it is the publisher who answers to the customer. Not me.

To go "I pay your salary!" to a developer is just as stupid as doing it to a teacher in a public school. And oversimplification of a system.

So your trying to tell me that if a game sells poorly then the devs will still get funding? What planet do you live on? We are talking about devs of mainstream games, not to belittle your work, rather than you yourself.What I said earlier still holds Your teacher analogy is spot on in that we also pay the salaries of teachers through tax. Aside from that they have no similarities. One we choose to buy the other we are forced to fund. If a dev comes and attacks gamers for criticising them when we pay their salary, which we do, showing no respect then they are out of order. Gamers pay their salary, they should treat us with bloody respect.

No.

I am saying that I still get paid if the game sells poorly. Thats the thing about working on a product that takes sometimes years to make and you are paid on a monthly basis. No matter how the game sell. I already got my money. So no you dont pay my salary.

I swear to god. I stated that I was not talking about you but of mainstream developers. You are not, this is fact not a derogative. I foyu cannot see that then you cannot read.

And you cannot understand that the developer doesn't get paid per copy sold. Welcome to a business that doesn't pay like waiting tables.

You know that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we buy their games and that good sales reflect in high funding and thus wages. That is fact,it is logic and it shows that we pay their wages. We are where the money comes from.

Yes and when I worked at Vesta making windmills the money came from everyone who bought power after they had gone through the contractor who had them build.

That is a vast oversimplification. And so is it when you do the same thing talk games.

The contractor contracted you because of the money that would be made from selling to those people, they are your ultimate customers. You dont seem to be capable of reading since youve overlooked this every time ive explained it. I dont see why you have such an issue with it, now im arguing because I refuse to believe you are this thick.

 

[zellosoli]

I don't see why we have to be so extreme in our thinking. It seems as if people think they need to choose a side (developer vs gamer), but that's not really the case. I can understand why the developer may become defensive when the quality of their work comes into question, but I also understand the dissatisfaction of gamers who feel that their being lied to or taken advantage of.

The problem I think we're having isn't one of interest, as I am pretty sure both the developer and the gamer want the best game possible. No, it's simply a communication problem that derives from each group resorting to name calling and juvenile whining instead of open-mindedness and maturity as far as discussion is concerned.

that's a good point, But how does one set up such a dialog between the two? so far as I can tell, the PR departments of dev's and publishers have been keeping everything in check by virtue of silence, but now that there are "holes in the PR wall" that everyone can see through, the friction is more apparent.
can anything be done?

 

[somonels]

Gamers have a right to deliver criticism of the games they buy.

Developers have the right to accept and dismiss criticism at their own discretion.

There really should be a game developer who just comes out and says "If you don't like what we do, then do not buy our game! Plain and fucking simple!"

If Gamers continue to act like whiny little dipshits, they shouldn't be surprised when a developer gives them a proverbial smack across the back of the head.

Remember that you have to Pay to try it.